To Righties: Did any of you argue that Bill Clinton was above our laws?

Jul 2013
59,421
66,437
Nashville, TN
You have to understand, in the minds of the fringe right, Clinton was fucking guilty and deserved thirty days in the electric chair, along with his wife, like the Rosenbergs, whereas Trump is totally innocent and the victim of a massive witch hunt by evil Democrats hiding in the depths of the Deep State. And they can cite Breitbart, the National Enquirer and the Moony Times to back their play. Maybe a little Infowars and Daily Caller...hell, even some Glen Beck..
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
78,746
48,880
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
Failure to appear for a subpoena would be a crime......
Well, no. If Trump fails to appear for a subpoena, Mueller (or whoever) would have to get a judge order Trump to appear.

If Trump still fails to appear, then he can be held in contempt. But there are two kinds of contempt: remedial and punitive. Punitive is closer to criminal, but still is not a "crime" as such; rather, it is contempt that is punishable even if he later complies with the order. Remedial contempt, on the other hand, is much more likely in this scenario anyway, wherein the sanction - if any - would only last as long as the contempt does, i.e., until he appears to give testimony.

All this is relatively hypothetical at this point, since if Trump wants to say nothing, all he has to do is appear and refuse to answer questions pursuant to the 5th Amendment. He can always change his mind about that, anyway. (Then again, it is less hypothetical simply because Trump is unlikely to submit to anyone else's authority, so that could be an issue....)
 

TNVolunteer73

Former Staff
Nov 2014
34,337
8,991
TN
I don't remember anyone arguing a president was above the law back then?

Are only Republican presidents above the law?
Yes, President Clinton could not be forced to testify in a CRIMINAL COURT.

Only problem the Paula Jones case was CIVIL


That rabbit you thought you pulled out of your hat, turned out to be a skunk, because your analogy stunk up the room quick.
 
May 2019
4,489
5,250
A Van Down by the River...
How about this-

When Special Prosecutor Ken Starr began to investigate Presiden Bill Clinton, it was for the Clinton's Whitewater deals.

Did you or the right argue that Ken Starr was going beyond his focus when he started to investigate the Blue Dress?

Why was it ok for Ken Starr to 'seek the truth where ever it led him' but Mueller is stuck to a narrow band of wrongdoing?
You make a good point here considering Mueller did not get into the innauguration hijinks and various other financial anomalies ripe for the picking ('cuz, well, it's Trump; and he's corrupt).
But he did refer a crap-ton out to appropriate jurisdictions, so then there's that.
 
May 2019
4,489
5,250
A Van Down by the River...
First of all ....

Muller is not stuck anywhere.

He has unprecedented authority to investigate whatever h wants.

That is not how it is done.

When the investigation takes a turn outside the already approved scope the special prosecutor has to go back to the Director and get approval to investigate whatever.

Ken Star did this.

Mueller is NOT under this condition.

Rosenstein gave Mueller unfettered power to investigate anything and everything
.

And, for the record Ken Star did not investigate the "blue dress" he investigated Ol' Slick for lying.

Which, given he was a Clinton, surely wasn't hard to do.

However, by that point even I was disgusted with the whole special prosecutor process.
Mueller Report pgs 11-13 detail the scope of the investigation and how it did lead to getting authorization for broadening the field to include particular Trump campaign staff -- as it related to Russian Interference.
As for Trump, if he had just kept his mouth shut, his self-destructive impulsiveness checked, and his thumbs locked, he wouldn't have been a subject at all.
 
May 2007
5,749
3,036
your place
Democrats. From Gennifer Flowers to Monica Lewinsky, they argued that Clinton's personal life did not matter and that he was still a good president. The media even accommodated this mindset by separating the approval polling into personal approval and job approval. Democrats won that argument. So now Republicans have a shit heel as president because people stopped caring about the character of the president.

What I remember it was the republicans that were making a big deal of restoring dignity to the White House so they voted in George W Bush and his administration lied about WMDs and many thousands of people died as a result.

It later turned out that Newt Gingrich was cheating on his wife as he lead the effort to impeach Clinton.

Then Larry Flint offered a million dollars for anyone who came forward admitting they had had sex with a republican. As a result Bob Livingston, the republican speaker elect had to resign.

Basically, the republicans were hypocrites. Newt Gingrich left his wife while she had cancer. That’s worse than not fessing up to a blow job. Besides, what was Clinton supposed to do? Would it have been moral for him to stand up and tell the world that a young woman had his dick in her mouth?